write_parts.c-54 : failed to open = [/local/etc/httpd/cgi-lis/txt_templates/compr_reg_crumb.txt]

Committee Reports

108th Congress (2003-2004)

House Report 108-580

Committee Reports for the 108th Congress
House Report 108-580 1 of 1
Search Results  > House Report 108-580
New Search Help  |  Contact Us
This Report: To Accompany H.R.4218     Printer Friendly: HTML  |  PDF


{link: 'http://www.congress.gov:80/cgi-bin/cpquery?',title: 'THOMAS - Committee Report - House Report 108-580' }

HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2004

29-006

108TH CONGRESS

REPORT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

2d Session

108-580

--HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2004

JULY 1, 2004- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 4218]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

CONTENTS

Page

-I.

Purpose of the Bill

-II.

Background and Need for the Legislation

-III.

Summary of Hearings

-IV.

Committee Actions

-V.

Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

-VI.

Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section)

-VII.

Committee Views

-VIII.

Cost Estimate

-IX.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

-X.

Compliance With Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)

-XI.

Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

-XII.

Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

-XIII.

Constitutional Authority Statement

-XIV.

Federal Advisory Committee Statement

-XV.

Congressional Accountability Act

-XVI.

Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law

-XVII.

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

-XVIII.

Committee Recommendations

-XIX.

Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup

I. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to revitalize interagency coordination and planning for the interagency program established by the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 and to focus greater attention and resources on federal high-performance computing programs. The program includes activities at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

State of high-performance computing in the world today

High-performance computers (also called supercomputers or high-end computers) are an essential component of U.S. scientific, industrial, and military competitiveness. However, the fastest and most efficient supercomputer in the world today--the `Earth Simulator'--is in Japan, not the U.S.

The success of Japan's Earth Simulator has caused a great deal of soul-searching in the high-performance computing community in the U.S. The Earth Simulator reflects a serious, sustained investment by the Japanese government in research, development, and construction of a customized computer designed to be the best in the world at tackling specific scientific and engineering tasks, including climate modeling and earthquake simulation. While Japan pursued this course, the U.S. chose to favor the use of commercially available components for constructing high-performance computers. An advantage of this approach was that it made high-performance computers more cost-effective to develop by leveraging development costs against a larger market. A disadvantage was that certain kinds of research questions are difficult to pursue on the kinds of computers that can be built with commercial components.

The role of the U.S. Government in high-performance computing

Despite the recent technical success of the Japanese, most experts still rate the U.S. as highly competitive in high-performance computing. The depth and strength of U.S. capability stems in part from the sustained research and development program carried out by federal science agencies under an interagency program codified by the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. That Act is widely credited with reinvigorating U.S. high-performance computing capabilities after a period of relative decline during the late 1980s.

The Federal government promotes high-performance computing in several different ways. First, it funds research and development at universities, government laboratories and companies to help develop new computer hardware and software; second, it funds the purchase of high-performance computers for universities and government laboratories; and third, it provides access to high-performance computers for a wide variety of researchers by allowing them to use government-supported computers at universities and government laboratories.

According to the National Coordination Office of the National Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRD), 11 agencies or offices participate in the high-end computing elements of the NITRD program. The total NITRD budget for all 11 agencies in Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) for high-performance computing was $862.6 million. The largest research and development programs were at NSF, $287.7 million, and the DOE Office of Science, $135.7 million. Other major agency activities (with funding ranging between $60 and $115 million) were at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, NASA, and DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). These budget estimates do not include the procurement costs for high-performance computers purchased by agencies such as NNSA and NOAA for computational science related to their missions. In addition to high-end computing, the NITRD program includes other program component areas, such as large scale networking.

III. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

On May 13, 2004, the Committee on Science held a hearing to examine the current state of federal high-performance computing research and development activities. Dr. John Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), endorsed H.R. 4218 on behalf of the Administration. Dr. Marburger also released the report of OSTP's High-End Computing Revitalization Task Force, Federal Plan for High-End Computing, during his appearance before the Committee.

The other witnesses also voiced their support for the legislation. The Committee heard testimony from Dr. Irving Wladawsky-Berger, Vice President for Technology and Strategy, IBM Corporation; Dr. Daniel Reed, Director of the Renaissance Computing Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Dr. Rick Stevens, Director of the Mathematics and Computer Science Division at Argonne National Laboratory. Witnesses addressed the need for an ongoing, coordinated interagency planning process to guide federal investment in high-performance computing procurements, research, and development. The witnesses noted the importance of the federal role in high-performance computing to ensure U.S. leadership in the field, and to ensure that U.S. academic and industrial researchers have access to leadership class machines.

IV. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On April 27, 2004, Representative Judy Biggert and Representative Lincoln Davis introduced H.R. 4218, the High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004, a bill to update the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 and to strengthen the U.S. position in high-performance computing.

The Full Committee on Science met on Wednesday, June 16, 2004, to consider the bill.

Mr. Sherman offered an amendment to require studies of the societal, ethical, and legal implications of creating artificial intelligence. A unanimous consent request to withdraw the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. Gordon moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 4218, to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass, and that the staff be instructed to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and prepare the legislative report and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration. With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to by a voice vote.

V. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

Defines `high-performance computing' as advanced computing, communications, and information technologies, including supercomputer systems, high-capacity and high-speed networks, special purpose and experimental systems, applications and systems software, and the management of large data sets.

Updates the authorized activities of the interagency High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program. Requires the program to provide for long-term basic and applied research on high-performance computing; sustained access by the research community in the United States to high-performance computing systems; computational science and engineering research on mathematical modeling and algorithms for applications in all fields of science and engineering; and educating and training of additional undergraduate and graduate students in fields relevant to high-performance computing.

Updates and strengthens the coordination responsibilities of the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Requires the Director to establish the goals and priorities for Federal high-performance computing research, development, networking, and other activities and to develop and maintain a research, development, and deployment roadmap for the provision of high-performance computing systems for use by the research community in the United States.

Requires the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) to conduct periodic evaluations of the funding, management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program, and to report to Congress on the findings.

Authorizes specific responsibilities for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency under the High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program. Requires NSF and the DOE Office of Science to provide U.S. researchers with access to world-class high-performance computing systems.

VI. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (BY TITLE AND SECTION)

Sec. 1. Short title

`High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004.'

Sec. 2. Definitions

Amends section 4 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (HPC Act) to further elaborate on, or amend, the definition of terms used in the Act:

`Grand Challenge' means a fundamental problem in science or engineering, with broad economic and scientific impact, whose solution will require the application of high-performance computing resources and multidisciplinary teams of researchers;

`High-performance computing' means advanced computing, communications, and information technologies, including supercomputer systems, high-capacity and high-speed networks, special purpose and experimental systems, applications and systems software, and the management of large data sets;

`Program' means the High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program described in section 101;

`Program Component Areas' means the major subject areas under which are grouped related individual projects and activities carried out under the Program.

Strikes the definition of `Network' because it refers to the National Research and Education Network, which no longer exists as such.

Sec. 3. High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program

Amends section 101 of the HPC Act, which describes the organization and responsibilities of the interagency research and development program originally referred to as the National High-Performance Computing Program--and renamed the High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program in this Act. Requires the program to:

Provide for long-term basic and applied research on high-performance computing;

Provide for research and development on, and demonstration of, technologies to advance the capacity and capabilities of high-performance computing and networking systems;

Provide for sustained access by the research community in the United States to high-performance computing systems that are among the most advanced in the world in terms of performance in solving scientific and engineering problems, including provision for technical support for users of such systems;

Provide for efforts to increase software availability, productivity, capability, security, portability, and reliability;

Provide for high-performance networks, including experimental testbed networks, to enable research and development on, and demonstration of, advanced applications enabled by such networks;

Provide for computational science and engineering research on mathematical modeling and algorithms for applications in all fields of science and engineering;

Provide for the technical support of, and research and development on, high-performance computing systems and software required to address Grand Challenges;

Provide for educating and training additional undergraduate and graduate students in software engineering, computer science, computer and network security, applied mathematics, library and information science, and computational science;

Provide for improving the security of computing and networking systems, including research required to establish security standards and practices for these systems.

Requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to:

Establish the goals and priorities for Federal high-performance computing research, development, networking, and other activities;

Establish Program Component Areas that implement the goals established for the Program and identify the Grand Challenges that the Program should address;

Provide for interagency coordination of Federal high-performance computing research, development, networking, and other activities undertaken pursuant to the Program;

Develop and maintain a research, development, and deployment roadmap for the provision of high-performance computing systems for use by the research community in the United States.

Leaves substantially unchanged the provisions of the HPC Act requiring the Director of OSTP to:

Provide an annual report to Congress, along with the annual budget request, describing the implementation of the Program, including current and proposed funding levels and programmatic changes, if any, from the previous year;

Consult with academic, State, and other appropriate groups conducting research on and using high-performance computing.

Requires the Director of OSTP to include in his annual report to Congress:

A detailed description of the Program Component Areas, including a description of any changes in the definition of activities under the Program Component Areas from the previous year, and the reasons for such changes, and a description of Grand Challenges supported under the Program;

An analysis of the extent to which the Program incorporates the recommendations of the Advisory Committee established by the HPC Act--currently referred to as the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC).

Requires PITAC to conduct periodic evaluations of the funding, management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program, and to report to Congress once every two fiscal years, with the first report due within one year of enactment.

Repeals section 102 of HPC Act, the `National Research and Education Network,' which required the development of a network to link research and educational institutions, government, and industry. This network was developed but has since been supplanted by the Internet.

Repeals section 103 of the HPC Act, `Next Generation Internet,' as this program is no longer in existence.

Sec. 4. Agency activities

Amends section 201 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the National Science Foundation (NSF) under the Program. Requires NSF to:

Support research and development to generate fundamental scientific and technical knowledge with the potential of advancing high-performance computing and networking systems and their applications;

Provide computing and networking infrastructure support to the research community in the United States, including the provision of high-performance computing systems that are among the most advanced in the world in terms of performance in solving scientific and engineering problems, including support for advanced software and applications development, for all science and engineering disciplines;

Support basic research and education in all aspects of high-performance computing and networking.

Amends section 202 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under the Program. Requires NASA to conduct basic and applied research in high-performance networking, with emphasis on:

Computational fluid dynamics, computational thermal dynamics, and computational aerodynamics;

Scientific data dissemination and tools to enable data to be fully analyzed and combined from multiple sources and sensors;

Remote exploration and experimentation;

Tools for collaboration in system design, analysis, and testing.

Amends section 203 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the Department of Energy (DOE) under the Program. Requires DOE to:

Conduct and support basic and applied research in high-performance computing and networking to support fundamental research in science and engineering disciplines related to energy applications;

Provide computing and networking infrastructure support, including the provision of high-performance computing systems that are among the most advanced in the world in terms of performance in solving scientific and engineering problems, and including support for advanced software and applications development, for science and engineering disciplines related to energy applications.

Amends section 204 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the Department of Commerce, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under the Program.

Requires NIST to:

Conduct basic and applied metrology research needed to support high-performance computing and networking systems;

Develop benchmark tests and standards for high-performance computing and networking systems and software;

Develop and propose voluntary standards and guidelines, and develop measurement techniques and test methods, for the interoperability of high-performance computing systems in networks and for common user interfaces to high-performance computing and networking systems;

Work with industry and others to develop, and facilitate the implementation of, high-performance computing applications to solve science and engineering problems that are relevant to industry.

Requires NOAA to conduct basic and applied research in high-performance computing applications, with emphasis on:

Improving weather forecasting and climate prediction;

Collection, analysis, and dissemination of environmental information;

Development of more accurate models of the ocean-atmosphere system.

Amends section 205 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Program. Requires EPA to conduct basic and applied research directed toward the advancement and dissemination of computational techniques and software tools with an emphasis on modeling to:

Develop robust decision-support tools;

Predict pollutant transport and their effects on humans and on ecosystems;

Better understand atmospheric dynamics and chemistry.

VII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

Interagency planning and coordination

The High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 codified an interagency planning process that remains in place today. However, the chief product of this process in recent years has been an annual retrospective review of activities undertaken by agencies, rather than a prospective planning document. The Committee expects all of the participating agencies to engage in a forward-looking planning and coordination process led by OSTP to coordinate high-performance computing activities across the federal government. The agencies, led by OSTP, should submit a coordinated budget for federal high-performance computing activities to the Office of Management and Budget. Furthermore, the agencies, led by OSTP, should develop and periodically refine a research, development, and deployment roadmap for high-performance computing systems. In addition, in formulating plans for the Program, the Committee expects the participating agencies to take into consideration the findings and recommendations of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, which is required to conduct recurring reviews of the planning, implementation, and contents of the Program.

Assuring U.S. researchers sustained access to high-performance computing infrastructure

The Committee believes that the High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program, in general, and NSF and DOE's Office of Science, in particular, must provide U.S. researchers with sustained access to high-performance computers that are among the most advanced in the world in terms of performance in solving scientific and engineering problems. This is necessary in order for the U.S. to maintain its position as a world leader in scientific and engineering fields and in technology innovation. By `among the most advanced in the world,' the Committee means general purpose scientific computing systems that would rank among the top few systems in existence in performance (1) on widely accepted standardized tests, such as the LINPACK Benchmark used to generate the Top 500 list; and (2) on actual production codes for solving the most demanding problems in science and engineering disciplines. The Committee intends that such computing systems be equivalent to `Leadership Systems' as described in the May 10, 2004 report of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Federal Plan for High-End Computing.

The Committee is supportive of recent initiatives to make DOE's Office of Science high-performance computing resources more broadly available to researchers not otherwise supported by DOE and to allocate those resources on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis. The Committee encourages DOE to increase the quantity of supercomputing resources allocated to U.S. researchers in this fashion and to provide information to the research community on the long-term availability of these resources.

The Committee is supportive of continued NSF funding of software, algorithms, networking and data storage techniques, and education and outreach activities associated with high-performance computing. However, the Committee emphasizes that significant attention and funding must also be devoted to procurement of high-performance computing hardware for high-performance computing user facilities, including the NSF supercomputer centers.

Overall, the Committee believes that for the federal government to effectively meet the scientific community's high-performance computing needs, NSF and DOE's Office of Science each must support Leadership Systems which should be available for use by researchers from academia, industry, and government laboratories. By use of the phrase `sustained access' the Committee expects NSF and DOE to develop and maintain plans and budgets to assure ongoing improvements in the capability of high-performance computing user facilities, such as the NSF supercomputer centers and DOE's Office of Science high-end (high-performance) computing user facilities, so that the computing infrastructure made available through these facilities remains among the most advanced in the world.

But the most advanced high-performance computing hardware, on its own, will not be enough to enable researchers to conduct the most advanced science. The Committee believes that the development of software, applications, networking, and data storage and management techniques, including support for the applied mathematics required to develop advanced software and algorithms, will be essential to enable researchers to make effective use of the high-performance computing resources made available under this Act.

National Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRD)

The NITRD program includes six program component areas: High End Computing, Large Scale Networking, Software Design and Productivity, Human Computer Interaction and Information Management, High Confidence Software and Systems, and Social, Economic, and Workforce Implications of Information Technology. While the focus of this Act is on high-performance computing, the Committee recognizes that all program component areas are essential parts of the federal information technology research and development effort and expects the planning and coordination process for the NITRD program to result in an appropriate balance of resources among the program component areas. The Committee expects the annual report for the program to provide the rationale for the allocation of funding among the program component areas. The Committee expects that the allocations for the high end computing program component area will be sufficient to carry out this Act.

VIII. COST ESTIMATE

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section IX of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).

H.R. 4218 does not contain new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. H.R. 4218 does not authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.

IX. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, July 1, 2004.

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4218, the High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen Gramp.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth M. Robinson

(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 4218--High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004

Summary: H.R. 4218 would amend existing statutory guidelines for interagency research and development (R&D) related to high-performance computing. Approximately $1.6 billion was appropriated for 2004 nondefense R&D on high-performance computing at six agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), National Institutes of Health, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce, and Environmental Protection Agency. This bill would realign program objectives with current R&D priorities, repeal authorizations for activities that are technologically outdated and emphasize newer issues, such as providing researchers sustained access to the most advanced computing systems in the world. In addition, the bill would direct the program's Advisory Committee to evaluate program funding, management, and effectiveness on a periodic basis.

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4218 would cost a total of $200 million over the 2005-2009 period, assuming appropriation of necessary funds for the new directives in the bill. CBO estimates enacting H.R. 4218 would have no effect on direct spending or revenues.

H.R. 4218 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, and tribal governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 4218 is shown in the following table. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted near the end of 2004 and that outlays will follow historical patterns for R&D infrastructure programs. The cost of this legislation primarily falls within budget function 250 (general science, space, and technology). 



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--                     


                                                                                 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                                              


Estiamted Authorization Level                                                      35   35   35   85   85 


Estimated Outlays                                                                  11   23   35   58   73 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Basis of estimate: CBO expects that agencies would need to increase spending to meet the bill's new goal of providing researchers with sustained access to `high-performance computing systems that are among the most advanced in the world in terms of performance in solving scientific and engineering problems.' For this estimate, CBO assumes that this provision would authorize appropriations to provide sustained access to leadership-class facilities. Under the bill, two agencies--NSF and DOE--would be required to provide such systems for researchers.

According to a May 2004 federal task force report on high-end computing, leadership-class facilities are high-end computers that will enable breakthroughs in challenging scientific and engineering computational problems. There are no such systems currently available for U.S. civilian researchers, but CBO expects that DOE will build one leadership-class facility under existing law based on the department's current plans.

According to DOE and NSF, such systems are typically acquired over a three-year period and would need to be replaced every three or four years. Hence, it is likely that NSF and DOE would need continuous funding for facility acquisition to provide researchers with sustained access to the most advanced computers. Based on information from these agencies, CBO expects that the cost of individual facilities could range from $60 million to $150 million (or an average of about $100 million), depending on the capabilities of the facilities and the software and infrastructure needed to support them. Experience with existing systems suggests that operations and maintenance costs for each facility would cost about $15 million a year. For this estimate, CBO assumes that NSF would build one facility over the 2005-2007 period and that both NSF and DOE would begin acquiring replacement facilities in 2008.

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4218 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, and tribal governments.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Greg Waring. Impact on the Private Sector: Jean Talarico.

Estimated approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

X. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4 (UNFUNDED MANDATES)


H.R. 4218 contains no unfunded mandates.

XI. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


The Committee on Science's oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

XII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES


Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of H.R. 4218 are to update the activities of the interagency High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program; to authorize specific program areas at NSF, DOE, NASA, NIST, NOAA, and EPA; and to expand the responsibilities of OSTP and PITAC in order to enhance the planning, management, and coordination of the Program.

XIII. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT


Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 4218.

XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT


The functions of the advisory committee required by H.R. 4218 could be performed by one or more agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another existing advisory committee.

XV. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT


The Committee finds that H.R. 4218 does not relate to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

XVI. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW


This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

XVII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED




HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING ACT OF 1991


* * * * * * *

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.




















TITLE I--HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING  [Struck out->][ AND THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK ][<-Struck out]  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


SEC. 101.  [Struck out->][ NATIONAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING ][<-Struck out]  HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.








































































* * * * * * *



























* * * * * * *

 [Struck out->][ SEC. 102. NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK. ][<-Struck out]
















































 [Struck out->][ SEC. 103. NEXT GENERATION INTERNET. ][<-Struck out]














































TITLE II--AGENCY ACTIVITIES


SEC. 201. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ACTIVITIES.




















* * * * * * *

SEC. 202. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES.














* * * * * * *

SEC. 203. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACTIVITIES.


































* * * * * * *

SEC. 204. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ACTIVITIES.


































* * * * * * *

SEC. 205. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACTIVITIES.












* * * * * * *

XVIII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS


On June 16, 2004, a quorum being present, the Committee on Science favorably reported H.R. 4218, The High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004, by a voice vote, and recommended its enactment.

XIX. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 4218, HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2004


WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2004


House of Representatives,

Committee on Science,

--Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Committee on Science will be in order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets today to consider the following measures: H.R. 3890, To Reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988; H.R. 3598, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004; H.R. 4218, High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004; and H.R. 4516, Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004. I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point during consideration of these matters. And without objection, it is so ordered.

We will now proceed with opening statements, and I will lead off.

I am going to keep my remarks very brief, because we have a long markup ahead of us. I would simply point out that once again we have come up with a good set of bipartisan bills that prepare our nation for the future. We have Ms. Hart's metals bill, which will help our nation save energy, helping the steel and aluminum industries remain competitive by helping our nation become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, all worthy goals. We have Ms. Biggert's computing bill--bills, which will revitalize our high-performance computing efforts, enabling our scientists and computing industry to excel as they face new challenges from abroad. And we have Dr. Ehlers' manufacturing bill, which will help our smaller manufacturers stay up-to-date and competitive. All of these bills reflect significant contributions from the Minority and have lead Minority co-sponsors, whom I am sure Mr. Gordon will acknowledge.

Our debate today will be prolonged, but it won't be on fundamental goals or principles. It will be about whether to do even more in the manufacturing bill. I think we need to get this measure through before we take on additional issues. We will have lively discussion on that, but we are united on trying to do everything possible for our manufacturers.

With that, let the games begin.

Mr. Gordon.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood Boehlert


I'm going to keep my remarks very brief because we have a long markup ahead of us.

I would simply point out that once again we've come with a good set of bipartisan bills that prepare our nation for the future. We have Ms. Hart's metals bill, which will help our nation save energy, helping the steel and aluminum industry remain competitive while helping our nation become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. We have Ms. Biggert's computing bills, which will revitalize our high-performance computing efforts, enabling our scientists and computing industry to excel as they face new challenges from abroad. And we have Mr. Ehlers manufacturing bill, which will help our smaller manufacturers stay up-to-date and competitive.

All these bills reflect significant contributions from the Minority and have lead Minority co-sponsors, whom I'm sure Mr. Gordon will acknowledge.

Our debate today will be prolonged, but it won't be on fundamental goals or first principles. It will be about whether to do even more in the manufacturing bill. I think we need to get this measure through before we take on additional issues. We'll have lively discussion on that, but we are united on trying to do everything possible for our manufacturers.

With that, let the games begin.

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that we are pleased at the bipartisan cooperation we have experienced in the development of three of the bills considered today: H.R. 3890, To Reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988; H.R. 4516, the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004; and H.R. 4218, the High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004.

With regard to H.R. 4218 and H.R. 4516, we believe the Committee is making a major contribution to reinvigorating high-end computing at a time when traditional U.S. lead is under vigorous challenge. We are depending on this program to increase ability to understand huge data sets across a wide spectrum of programs ranging from advanced manufacturing to weather prediction.

The steel industry is one of several industrial sectors that are heavy users of energy and benefit from cooperative research with the Federal Government. We support not only continuing the Department of Energy's program with the steel industry as set out in H.R. 3890, but also strengthening the entire Industries of the Future Program.

Unfortunately, though, however, the same level of cooperation did not occur on H.R. 3598 in developing our manufacturing policy. This is particularly disturbing in light of the battering this sector has endured over the last three years. We have no problem with the tentative first steps taken in H.R. 3598, but we do not think it is an adequate response to the problems that have cost the jobs of two million Americans. I will have further comments on this bill when it is called up for consideration.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon


We are pleased at the bipartisan cooperation we have experienced in the development of three bills to be considered today: H.R. 3890, TO REAUTHORIZE THE STEEL AND ALUMINUM ENERGY CONSERVATION AND TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1988; H.R. 4516, The Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004; and H.R. 4218, The High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004.

With regard to H.R. 4218 and H.R. 4516, we believe the Committee is making a major contribution to reinvigorating high-end computing at a time when the traditional U.S. lead is under vigorous challenge. We are depending on this program to increase our ability to understand huge data sets across a wide spectrum of problems ranging from advanced manufacturing to weather prediction. The steel industry is one of several industrial sectors that are heavy users of energy that benefit from cooperative research with the Federal Government. We support, not only continuing the Department of Energy's program with the steel industry as set out in H.R. 3890, but also strengthening the entire Industries of the Future Program.

Unfortunately, the same level of cooperation did not occur on the H.R. 3598, The Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2004, in developing our manufacturing policy. This is particularly disturbing in light of the battering this sector has endured over the past three years. We have no problem with the tentative first steps taken in H.R. 3598, but we do not think it is an adequate response to the problems that have cost the jobs of two million Americans. I will have further comments on this bill when it is called up for consideration.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.

Without objection, all Members may place opening statements in the record at this point.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson


Thank you, Chairman for calling this markup on High-Performance Computing.

There has been much discussion on whether the United States is losing ground to foreign competitors in the production and use of supercomputers and whether federal agencies' proposed paths for advancing our supercomputing capabilities are adequate to maintain or regain the U.S. lead.

As we all know, a high-performance computer, also called a supercomputer, is a broad term for one of the fastest computers currently available. Such computers are typically used for number crunching including scientific simulations, (animated) graphics, analysis of geological data (e.g., in petrochemical prospecting), structural analysis, computational fluid dynamics, physics, chemistry, electronic design, nuclear energy research, and meteorology.

Supercomputers are state-of-the-art, extremely powerful computers capable of manipulating massive amounts of data in a relatively short time. They are very expensive and are employed for specialized scientific and engineering applications that must handle very large databases or do a great amount of computation, among them meteorology, animated graphics, fluid dynamic calculations, nuclear energy research and weapon simulation, and petroleum exploration.

High-performance computers are gaining popularity in all corners of corporate America. They are used to analyze vehicle crash test by auto manufacturers, evaluate human diseases and develop treatments by the pharmaceutical industry and test aircraft engines by the aero-space engineers.

It quite evident that supercomputing will become more important to America's commerce in the future. I look forward to working with this committee on its advancement. Mr. Chair, I yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

Prepared Statement of Representative Lincoln Davis


Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling up H.R. 4218, the High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004, which Congresswoman Biggert and I introduced. I also want to thank Ms. Biggert for working with me to help develop this legislation.

H.R. 4218 amends the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, which established a major federal research and development program in computing and networking that now involves seven agencies and is funded at about $2 billion per year. The bill seeks to reverse what I would characterize as a weakening of the planning mechanisms for the R&D program established by the 1991 Act.

High-performance computing and communications technology is key to the Nation's economic competitiveness and security, and it is important to prioritize and effectively coordinate activities among the performing agencies. The bill requires formal biennial reviews of the interagency program by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee in order to provide outside advice for sharpening program priorities and improving program implementation.

H.R. 4218 also attempts to focus more effort by the interagency program on high-end computing. The key requirement is for the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop and maintain a roadmap for developing and deploying high-end systems necessary to ensure that the U.S. research community has sustained access to the most capable computing systems. In addition, NSF is explicitly required to provide for access by researchers to such computing systems. These requirements are designed to ensure the research community has access to the most powerful computing systems.

Mr. Chairman, the interagency research program launched by the 1991 Act has been largely a success. It has helped provide the computing and networking infrastructure required to support leading edge research and to drive information technology forward for the benefit of society at large.

H.R. 4218 will serve to strengthen the research program and deserves the approval of the Committee. I ask my colleagues for their support in reporting the bill favorably to the House.

The next bill on the roster is H.R. 4218, High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004. We will now proceed with opening remarks. Since I have already discussed the bill in my opening statement, I will now recognize Mr. Gordon for five minutes to present his opening remarks.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend Congresswoman Biggert and Congressman Lincoln Davis for their leadership on the High-Performance Computing policy, and for the work on developing H.R. 4218. And I would like to now yield the balance of my time to my neighbor, Congressman Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Gordon, thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling up House Resolution 4218, the High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004, which Congresswoman Biggert and I have introduced. I would also like to thank Mrs. Biggert for her work in helping to develop this legislation. House Resolution 4218 amends the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, which established a major federal research and development program in computing and networking, that now involves seven agencies, and is funded at about $2 billion per year.

This bill seeks to reverse what I would characterize as a weakening of the planning mechanisms for the R&D program established by the 1991 Act. High-performance computing and communications technology is key to the Nation's economic competitiveness and security. It is important to prioritize an effectively coordinated activity among the performing agencies.

The bill requires formal, biannual reviews of the interagency program by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee in order to provide outstanding advice for sharpening program priorities, and improving program implementation. This resolution also attempts to focus more effort by the interagency program on high-end computing.

The key requirements is for the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop and maintain a roadmap for developing and deploying high-end systems necessary to ensure that the U.S. research community has sustained access to the most capable computing systems. In addition, NSF is explicitly required to provide for access by researchers to such computing systems.

These requirements are designed to ensure the research community has access to the most powerful computing systems. Mr. Chairman, the interagency research program launched by the 1991 Act has largely been a success. It has helped provide the computing and network infrastructure required to support leading edge research, and to drive information technology forward for the benefit of society at large.

This resolution will serve to strengthen the research program, and deserves the approval of this committee. I ask my colleagues for their support in reporting the bill favorably to the House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the rest of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mrs. Biggert is recognized.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about the bill. I would like to start by thanking the bill's chief co-sponsor, Congressman Lincoln Davis, and also by thanking the other co-sponsors of this important legislation, including you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Ehlers, and Ms. Woolsey, and thank you all for your support.

Let me just say that there--the bill does four things. First, it requires that federal agencies provide the U.S. research community access to the most advanced, high-performance computing systems, and technical support for their users. Second, the bill requires federal agencies to support all aspects of high-performance computing for scientific and engineering applications, and third, the bill directs an interagency planning process to develop and maintain a research, development, and deployment roadmap for the provision of high-performance computing resources for the U.S. research community, and finally, the bill clarifies the mission of each of the federal agencies that have a role in developing or using high-performance computing.

I believe that this bill will guide federal agencies in providing needed support to high-performance computing and its user community. Our nation's scientific enterprise and our economy will be stronger for it. And I yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Without all--without objection, all Members may place opening statements in the record at this point. I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, and that the Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered.

The first amendment on the roster is amendment number 1, amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman. Are you ready to proceed?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is an issue I have addressed this Committee----

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 4218 offered by Mr. Sherman.

[Note: See the Appendix for the Amendment offered by Mr. Sherman.]

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. We have heard testimony in this committee that we are within roughly 25 years of artificial intelligence matching or exceeding human cognitive abilities.

We cannot ignore that fact and plunge forward with computers as if they are simply tools, without reflecting that we are within a generation of, perhaps, another cognitive life form, or at least intelligence on this planet. Two bills will come before this committee dealing with supercomputing. A third agency of government is also dealing with that issue, DARPA, which is not under the jurisdiction of this committee. Their mission statement, on their webpage, which I will ask permission to enter into the record, states that it is their mission to develop a computer which will learn from its experience, be aware of themselves, and able to reflect on their own behavior. It is DARPA, not I, that uses human pronouns to describe that which DARPA is trying to create. Yet, they don't mention, certainly if you are working for the Defense Department and able to reflect on your own behavior, shouldn't you at least get veteran's benefits? I wonder.

Now, we deal with two other agencies. We have been told, in this very room, that we don't know whether we are creating Data from The Next Generation, or HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey. But we are moving in that direction. I at first thought that I would propose an amendment saying that we are not going to authorize research designed to create this human level cognitive ability. I have decided to water down my amendment in the hope that it might be accepted, and that is to simply require a study or series of studies before we go down this road.

I have--I point out that on the nanotechnology bill, that is exactly what this committee did. And so, what my amendment would do--and we might need to clarify in the report language, and I would work with the Chair, with the Ranking Member, on the report language--is state that before you go forward with research designed to meet or exceed human cognitive ability, and we would define that in report language, we need to see studies as to the ethical and legal implications of the creation of artificial intelligence.

The United States, of course, as it competes with the rest of the world, we want the strongest computers, the fastest computers, and we would like to think that we are only making a tool. That may be the case, but we cannot go forward along this line without at least looking at the issues that come before us.

Now, I know this sounds like science fiction. In fact, I alluded to two works of science, one involving Data, the other HAL. But as one panel testified before us, if you are describing the future, and it sounds like science fiction, then it is possible that description of the future is false. But if you are describing the future and it doesn't sound like science fiction, you know that description of the future is false. The future is--tomorrow is today's science fiction. We just don't know which of the science fiction movies models the future.

We should not rush headlong into the creation of a second cognitive intelligence on this planet without at least studying the implications. At that point, I will yield back, and hope that this amendment can be accepted.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. I appreciate the gentleman's intent, and I must admit being intrigued by your statement, but this amendment is so broadly written that it could bring computer science to a halt.

What do the terms in the amendment mean? Does a computer that can beat a human at chess qualify? Does a computer that can calculate and model far beyond human capabilities qualify? I don't know what we are banning here. This threatens a ban on research, even though there is no known threat, and the ban is ill-defined. That is a dangerous road to go down. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Now, let me tell you what has happened. We have a general agreement. We have been through many hours of spirited debate, productive debate, and some of the Members have just had to go elsewhere, and I am not going to drag everybody back here to vote on this amendment.

I hope the gentleman would accept sort of a show of hands in support, opposition, and be guided by the sentiments of the majority here. Would you be willing to do that, Mr. Sherman?

Mr. SHERMAN. I may not require a recorded vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

Mr. SHERMAN. But if you will yield.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I would certainly yield.

Mr. SHERMAN. My original amendment could have been viewed as a threat to research, since it indicated we didn't authorize certain research. My goal now is, as we did with the nanotechnology bill, to require that the agencies that are funding this research also fund studies of the legal and ethical implications. So, there is no bar to further research. And just as we did not bar the development of nanotechnology, but rather, required a look at the societal implications.

If there is a need to redraft my amendment, I would be happy to work with you after these hearings, with an understanding that we are going to require a look at these societal, ethical, and legal implications of this creation of supercomputing.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, thank you very much for one, indicating that you probably were unlikely to call for a roll call vote. That shows you are considerate of other Members, both sides, time and effort. Two, I think everything we should do should consider societal impact, ethical impact. So I will be glad to work with you directly, have staff talk this thing through, and see if we can't accomplish some of your original intent to focus on the issue, without being proscriptive and preventing any research going forward absent such a study.

Is that fair enough?

Mr. SHERMAN. That is fair enough, and I think our work on the nanotechnology bill achieved that goal, and had overwhelming support on the----

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, we called for studies.

Mr. SHERMAN. Right.

Chairman BOEHLERT. But absent the studies, we didn't halt anything.

Mr. SHERMAN. Exactly.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Okay.

Mr. SHERMAN. And I think we can achieve something that you are describing, rather than what could--we can do a better job of drafting.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Got it.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. In the spirit of comity, then, do you ask unanimous consent that your amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. SHERMAN. I do indeed.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman's amendment is withdrawn. Without objection, so ordered. Are there--where are we? Are there any further amendments? Then hearing none, the question is on the bill, H.R. 4218, High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. I will now recognize Mr. Gordon to offer a motion.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 4218 to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report, and make necessary technical and conforming changes, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the motion to report the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the measure. I move, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 4218, and go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 4218, or a similar Senate bill. Without objection, so ordered.

This concludes our Committee markup, and I want to thank those who indulged all of us for so many hours. I want to thank the staff on a bipartisan basis for their outstanding input, that makes these success stories possible.

This Committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Appendix:


H.R. 4218, HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2004; SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 4218; AMENDMENT ROSTER


000

h4218a.eps

h4218b.eps

h4218c.eps

h4218d.eps

h4218e.eps

h4218f.eps

h4218g.eps

h4218h.eps

h4218i.eps

h4218j.eps

h4218k.eps

h4218l.eps

h4218m.eps

h4218n.eps

Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 4218, High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004


Sec. 1. Short Title


`High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004.'

Sec. 2. Definitions


Amends section 4 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (HPC Act) to further elaborate on, or amend, the definition of terms used in the Act:









Strikes the definition of `Network' that refers to the National Research and Education Network, which no longer exists as such.

Sec. 3. ÌHigh-Performance Computing Research and Development Program


Amends section 101 of the HPC Act, which describes the organization and responsibilities of the interagency research and development (R&D) program originally referred to as the National High-Performance Computing Program--and renamed the High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program in this Act. Requires the program to:



















Requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to:









Leaves substantially unchanged the provisions of the HPC Act requiring the Director of OSTP to:





Requires the Director of OSTP to include in his annual report to Congress:





Requires PITAC to conduct periodic evaluations of the funding, management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program, and to report to Congress once every two fiscal years, with the first report due within one year of enactment.

Repeals section 102 of HPC Act, the `National Research and Education Network,' which requires the development of a network to link research and educational institutions, government, and industry. This network was developed but has since been supplanted by the Internet.

Repeals section 103 of the HPC Act, `Next Generation Internet,' as this program is no longer in existence.

Sec. 4. Agency Activities


Amends section 201 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the National Science Foundation (NSF) under the Program. Requires NSF to:







Amends section 202 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under the Program. Requires NASA to conduct basic and applied research in high-performance networking, with emphasis on:









Amends section 203 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the Department of Energy (DOE) under the Program. Requires DOE to:





Amends section 204 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the Department of Commerce, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under the Program.

Requires NIST to:









Requires NOAA to conduct basic and applied research in high-performance computing applications, with emphasis on:







Amends section 205 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Program. Requires EPA to conduct basic and applied research directed toward the advancement and dissemination of computational techniques and software tools with an emphasis on modeling to:







4218a.eps

4218b.eps



 




 
  
     

        
 
          


          


          

         

      		
    





  
     

       

          This Report: 


              Printer Friendly: 
HTML  |  PDF


       

      

    		
  

 



  

    
       

         

           
Search Results  > House Report 108-580 


     

    

   		
  





    
      

        

          
New Search


      
Help  |  Contact Us


      

     

   		
 



  

    1 of 1